Additional Materials:

Contact:

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 19. BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING THREE TYPES OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER FOR DELIVERY TO PARIS. YOU STATE THAT AT THE TIME THE BIDS WERE ABSTRACTED. WIGGINS WAS REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE TO VERIFY HIS BID ON ITEM 2. WIGGINS TELEPHONED ALLEGING THAT THE CORRECT PRICE FOR ITEM 2 IS $78.50 PER TON AND NOT $59.90 PER TON. STATED THAT THE ERROR IN HIS BID WAS CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT HE MISUNDERSTOOD HIS SUPPLIER WHEN HE WAS QUOTING THE PRICES FOR THE FERTILIZER OVER THE TELEPHONE. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT MR. SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BID AS TO ITEM 2 WAS ERRONEOUS. SUCH BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ERROR WAS EXPLAINED BY THE BIDDER PRIOR TO AWARD.

B-131178, MAR. 27, 1957

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 19, 1957, WITH ENCLOSURES, REQUESTING A DECISION AS TO THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN CONCERNING AN ERROR WHICH WIGGINS NO. 2, PARIS, ARKANSAS, ALLEGES IT MADE IN ITS BID OPENED ON MARCH 12, 1957.

BY INVITATION NO. SCS-6-AK-57, BIDS WERE REQUESTED FOR FURNISHING THREE TYPES OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER FOR DELIVERY TO PARIS, ARKANSAS. RESPONSE WIGGINS NO. 2 SUBMITTED AN UNDATED BID OFFERING TO FURNISH, AMONG OTHER ITEMS, 10-20-10 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER UNDER ITEM 2 AT A PRICE OF $59.90 PER TON. THE SIX OTHER BIDDERS ON ITEM 2 QUOTED PRICES RANGING FROM $71.75 PER TON TO $82.50 PER TON.

YOU STATE THAT AT THE TIME THE BIDS WERE ABSTRACTED, IT APPEARED THAT WIGGINS NO. 2 PROBABLY HAD MADE AN ERROR IN ITEM 2 OF THEIR BID AS SUBMITTED, SINCE THE DIFFERENCE IN THEIR BID AND THE NEXT LOW BID OF $71.75 PER TON AMOUNTED TO $12.25 PER TON; THAT ON MARCH 12, 1957, MR. UEL U. WIGGINS WAS REQUESTED BY TELEPHONE TO VERIFY HIS BID ON ITEM 2; AND THAT LATER THE SAME DAY, MR. WIGGINS TELEPHONED ALLEGING THAT THE CORRECT PRICE FOR ITEM 2 IS $78.50 PER TON AND NOT $59.90 PER TON, AS ORIGINALLY QUOTED.

IN A CONFIRMING LETTER DATED MARCH 15, 1957, MR. WIGGINS REQUESTED THAT HIS BID ON ITEM 2 BE CORRECTED TO READ $78.50 PER TON, AND STATED THAT THE ERROR IN HIS BID WAS CAUSED BY THE FACT THAT HE MISUNDERSTOOD HIS SUPPLIER WHEN HE WAS QUOTING THE PRICES FOR THE FERTILIZER OVER THE TELEPHONE.

ON THE RECORD, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR DOUBT THAT MR. WIGGINS MADE AN ERROR IN HIS BID, AS ALLEGED. ACCORDINGLY, SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE BID AS TO ITEM 2 WAS ERRONEOUS, AND SUCH BELIEF WAS CONFIRMED AND THE ERROR WAS EXPLAINED BY THE BIDDER PRIOR TO AWARD, THE BID OF WIGGINS NO. 2 AS TO ITEM 2 MAY BE DISREGARDED IN MAKING THE AWARD.

THE ORIGINAL BID OF WIGGINS NO. 2 IS RETURNED. THE OTHER PAPERS IN THE CASE ARE BEING RETAINED.